This patent is directed to an electronic gaming system for playing a bingo-type game, and, in particular, to an electronic gaming system for playing a bingo-type game that permits equitable adjustment of probabilities of achieving a win event.
Many players in the United States and elsewhere enjoy playing a class of games of chance that have been referred to commonly as bingo. In broad terms, each player has a card with an array of unique numbers that are selected from a larger set of numbers, and numbers from within the larger set are selected, often one at a time, until a player matches the numbers on their card with the selected numbers in a particular pattern. For example, the card may have an array of five columns, each associated with one of the letters B-I-N-G-O. The game play continue until the phrase “BINGO” is spelled by one of the players in accordance with the matching of the numbers on the card with the numbers selected.
Electronic gaming machines have been designed to permit players to play bingo-type games in groups, and to wager on the outcomes. Not all players will want to wager the same amount on the game, however. Some players will want to wager only enough to join the game, while other players will want to wager as much as permitted. This presents an issue for the organization that is running the bingo-type game, because there is a desire to permit both low-wager and high-wager players to play the same game.
To a certain extent, designers and manufacturers of bingo-type electronic gaming machines have addressed the issue by scaling the prize or award. That is, if a first player wagers one dollar and a second player wagers ten dollars, and then both participate in a single bingo-type game, the first player might win ten dollars for matching a particular pattern, while a second player may win one hundred dollars for matching the same pattern. This system provides equal probability and prize-to-wager equality.
In addition to prizes or awards of fixed value or amount, designer and manufacturers of bingo-type electronic gaming machines would like to provide awards that increase in value based on player participation. For example, in a progressive game, each player contributes a portion of their wager to a pot; as more wagers are received, the jackpot increases.
The progressive game presents issues for bingo-type gaming machine designers and manufacturers. Players who wager more than players who wager less contribute more to the progressive pot, but if the bingo-type game is used to assess a win of the progressive pot, all players would have an equal probability to win the pot. Thus, there is equal probability, but no prize-to-award equality.
The generally accepted solution is to implement the progressive jackpot in the following fashion for those electronic gaming machines designated to participate in a progressive jackpot. The wagers from all participating machines contribute to the progressive jackpot, regardless of the size of the wager: a player wagering one dollar contributes the same percentage of the bet as a player wagering ten dollars. Only players that wager the maximum amount are permitted to win the progressive jackpot, however. This solution maintains prize-to-wager equality, while the game provides equal probability for the players in the group that are eligible to win the progressive.
This solution to the issues of equal probability and prize-to-wager equality in the context of a progressive jackpot has the effect of disenfranchising the players that wager less than the maximum amount: they contribute to the progressive prize but are unable to win the progressive prize. A further solution is therefore adopted for these players: the non-maximum bet players are awarded a scaled value relative to the reset value of the progressive jackpot. If a jackpot is reset to one hundred dollars once awarded, the player wagering the minimum amount might win ten dollars, the player wager twice that amount might win twenty dollars.
The solution permitting only players wagering the maximum amount to participate in the progressive jackpot cause other problems as well. For example, by limiting the pool of players to only those that wager the maximum amount, the pool of players is relatively small, perhaps 5% of all players. Consequently, where the progressive is intended to be won at a particular frequency by design, the small pool of possible winners can have the effect of adjusting the frequency from the designed value.